Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Alpha Glass, Rangefinding Binoculars

Those of you with alpha glass, have you given up your non-rangefinding binocs for a pair of rangefinding binocs?

I am considering some alpha binocs. I have a set of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42s now, and I think they are very good. I'm sure they give up some to Swaro ELs.

I don't particularly care for my rangefinder, as it's always somewhere in my pack or in some pocket, but it works.

If you had to save up, and competing interests include rifles, guided elk hunts, etc., are the RF binocs be worth the cost? These binocs will have to last a good while--15 years?

Really it comes down to Swaro EL vs Swaro EL RF.

I'm one of those law of diminishing returns guys. However, the 10x42 Swarovision is a spectacular piece of equipment. Glass is downright amazing. The weird thing is, the 10x50SV is even better, and that's saying something. It is the single best binocular I've ever used (haven't seen the Zeiss SF yet, but Swaro CS seals that deal for me).

Shrap told me that while the EL Range is great, optically it takes a back seat to the SV's.

I didn't like the ergonomics of the Swaro or the Leica RFs as much as the Zeiss. Briefly had a 10x45 Zeiss RF that now resides with a fine gentleman in LA. Only looked at street signs with them and ranged a sign at 1600+ yards. My hunting pard has the same in 8x45. I prefer the 8x and his RF is awesome. He ranged antelope at over 1500 yards at sunset in WY last year. And the glass is amazing. The only downside to me is the weight of that thing hanging off my neck all day. For that reason only, I'll stick with my Leica bino and hand held RF.

Just my thoughts. Try them on for yourself and decide what fits you.

Ive owned geovids, zeiss RF and now the El Range. The range finder in el range is lots better at ranging than the other two. Glass is great also.

Not my experience.

Zeiss is furthest behind in RF but not by much.

Swaro and Leica pretty even in RF and glass but 45mm objective in Zeiss adds a bit at daylight and dusk.

All are great.

Now days the Swaro and the Leica are top of the pack but the Zeiss is still very good if the price is right.

I went through this deciding which one lately and went with the Zeiss 8x45 RF because I could get a demo with an additional sale price from Camera land. I couldn't tell them from brand new when I received them.

While I've not tried the comparable Leicas or Swaro's which I'm sure are very good, I'm very pleased with these.

I do have the big Leica Geovid HD 15x56 also and my impression is its RF is not as sure as is the newer, smaller Zeiss model.

Edit: a picture and a couple of comments added. As you can see these Zeiss Victory RF 8x45s are pretty big and heavy at almost 40 oz. the 300 Weatherby cartridge notwithstanding. I got them in June but Iowa humidity in the summer time makes it difficult to evaluate optic quality or resolution, so I'll see how they do in the mountains in five weeks or so.

The range-finding is very good and I like to range a lot when hunting, the reason I opted for one instrument rather than two.

I've had both the older geovids and the HD's to my eyes the HD's were a pretty good improvement. The ergos were ok, but the eyecups didn't work the best for me. I have used the zeiss BRF in the field that a friend had, the RF is great but they just seemed too big/bulky and when at the exact same time comparing them to my swarovisions the zeiss were certainly a ways behind optically.
My binos of the last 4 years have been 10x42 SVs and they still amaze me everytime I look through them.
Funny thing, in a trade this spring I ended up with a used set of the El ranges in 10x42, which I still have. I thought the barrel buldges would bother me but they really don't and I'm a big fan of the swaro EL's open bridge design. I'll never sell my SV's but I'll take the EL ranges out west this year and give them a work out....they are perhapsa very slight step behind the Svs optically but I'm not sure that will ever cost me an animal and it sure is nice having the RF in the bino.
Either way I can't imagine you being sorry for your decision, both are fantastic tools.

That may of been the case with the older EL Range but not anymore. Comparing a fairly new 10x42 SV, an older Swaro 10x42 EL Range and a brand new updated 2015 model of the same power this morning. The new EL range is every bit as good (sharp, color correct, bright) as the SV 10x42 and even more immersive or 3D if you like. This is probably because the EL doesn't have the flat field design that the SV has. Both are slightly but noticeably ahead of the older EL Range optically.

The new 2015 EL Range ranged out to 1997 yards on a building which returned a ---- on the older model and the ranging is quicker on other shorter distances than it's predecessor.

The new harness arrangement is okay, better than I thought and the rather long loose ends can be tucked back up into the two Velcro pockets on the neck strap. The new objective covers seem to work well.

Don't be fooled by something new. The only difference in the later EL range is ergonomics. Optically they are the same as they were before. They do not have Swarovision lenses or coating...

Here's a great breakdown of some of your candidates:

Precision Rifle Blog: rangefinding binocs

Here is a real world test of 4 years of comparisons I did in the field. Although not flawless it is darned extensive...

After 4 years of trials, 1 Set of Swarovski 8X42 EL, 2 Sets of Swarovski 10X42 EL and 1 pair of Leica HD-B, the jury is in.

I started with the 8X42 EL as I have preferred 8X for most of my optic use. I didn't care for the 8X as much as I have for the 8.5 in both the EL and later the EL Swarovision, so I tried the 10X EL range.

They were good glass and great range finders, although they aren't the quality of the Swarovision. They never were designed to be as good as the Swarovision and I knew that going in. I still wanted the benefit of the all-in-one package. I used them for around 2 years with good results.

The HD-B came out and had incorporated the Perger Porro-prism in the binoculars and everyone knows a porro-prism is better quality for the optic than a roof prism. I was anxious to use the Leica and see the advantage of the newest in optics and rangefinder.

Between the 2, the Leica was faster at ranging than the Swarovski and easily out distanced the Swarovski. I did have them to compare side by side and I eventually sold the Swarovski and used the Leica. All the ballistical information that can be downloaded into the Leica made no difference to me as I have ballistic reticles in my scopes and shoot accordingly. If all the programmable information is of value, this could skew your preference to to Leica over the Swarovski, I was only concerned about the rangefinding capabilities and optical quality.

I used the Leica for over 2 years, combined comparisons between the 2 are from 4 years of extensive field use. I also found the Leica to be on the upper end of usable size, any larger or heavier and they would be hard to realistically consider for that much use in the field.

There are many comparisons to be made;

Button for the rangefinder...Leica
Eyepiece...Swarovski
Focus wheels...Tie
Target size of lazer in eyepiece...Leica
Readability of rangefinder...Tie
Range distance...Leica
Size and feel...Swarovski, even with the 2 bellies in the tubes, you don't know they are there

Rainguards and objective covers...Swarovski

Optic quality...Swarovski, I was very disappointed with the optics of
the Leica, I expected more from them as their Ultra-vids, give up little to any optic made

There are more comments that can be added, but for the sake of a short/concise comparison, this is a good start.

I just sold the Leica HD-B and bought the last pair of Swarovski that Cabelas had. I am not interested in the newest Swarovski, as I am more interested in Swarovision quality in the optics of the binocular. Until either company comes out with an affordable set of ranging binoculars that has the optical quality of Swarovision, I will continue to use the Swarovski Ranging EL's.

The comparison of the 2 optics leans in favor of Leica, but I feel that the overall useability of the Swarovski is better and although they don't range as far, I will never be shooting anything past 1600 yards and the Swaro will easily do that. I do like the optical quality of the Swarovski and the way the eyepieces fit as well.

Swarovski wins at least for me...

Well, so some people say, although Swarovski has yet to confirm that. I definitely can see a difference between the old and the new optically. Perhaps the coatings have being improved. The speed of the ranging definitely is faster and the button feels more precise in use.

I don't believe the SV have different coatings to the EL Range either, where have Swarovski ever said that? The SV have the flat field lenses in the oculars but apart from that there's not much difference. I own the 8X32 Swarovision's. Personally, don't look at the edges of the FOV as I find it uncomfortable so I guess the totally flat field is wasted on me.

I'd ask yourself if you really use a rangefinder a lot in the field. Like, a lot, lot.

If you don't, I'd buy something that weighs less because the RF binocs are pretty heavy IMO.



Travis

Also consider how little of that 15 years the electronics are warrantied. For me, right now, seperate units are a better deal.

zeissman,

As a matter of fact Swarovski has made it known that the only difference in the previous EL range and the latest model is the strap attachment, the objective lens covers and the ranging button is a little taller. I was at an outdoor show last Saturday and a Swarovski factory rep verified this...

Yep, I've heard Swaro reps say things about several of their products at different times which didn't prove to be the case. Mind you, working in a hunting and fishing store I've found that's typical for most reps of most products.

Basically, there's not much difference between the old and new EL's. The ranging speed is certainly faster in the latest version and as I said, we (three of us) could see a slight improvement optically. As the EL's are Swarovski's most expensive binos, taking into account the cost of the intergral rangefinder, why wouldn't they include the very latest coatings in them?

Can't say I'm enthused with the new harness attachment system as it precludes the use of some very good bino harness systems such as the Kuiu one.

I don't know why Zeiss haven't upgraded their RF binos. Their newer Victory HT binos are better optically than the older FL's the rangefinder binos are based on. The Zeiss HT is one very sharp binocular. Haven't had a chance to look through the new Zeiss SF which apparently were designed to compete with the Swaro SV for the birding community.

zeissman, if you were to be perfectly fair, and test them side by side, you'd see that Shrap is right. Optically speaking, the SV is superior to the EL Range, the Zeiss HT is superior to the Zeiss RF bino, and the Leica Ultravid HD is superior to the Leica Geovids. I do not believe any mfg uses it's finest optics/coatings in their RF binoculars. I think it has something to do with a conflict in the laser vs. glass coatings or something like that.

zeissman,

I'm sorry I wasted your time. Working in a hunting and fishing store tells me all I need to know. I have never been in a hunting and fishing store where the counter people weren't at least twice as smart as everyone else...

Well smarty pants, I only work there part time between fishing and hunting guiding. However, as you've such a big ego (everybody knows shrapnel etc) I'll feed it by agreeing with you that most store personnel don't know [bleep] - they don't even know who shrapnel is. Should we feel sorry for them or pleased for them?

Raider, I have tested a one year old 10x42 SV side by side and I own a Swaro 8x32 SV. Now your point about the conflict of the laser, as far as I'm aware, it has nothing to do with the coatings but more to do with the rangefinder electronics which in the Swarovski EL are located in the humps underneath the barrels out of the optical path. The Zeiss doesn't have this feature. I would disagree that the Leica Geovid HD-B is in any way optically inferior to the Leica Ultravid HD (haven't looked through the HD plus).

It's certainly possible that the earlier EL Range models may have different lens coatings to the late 2014 models which may be the same as in the new current model. Who knows except Swarovski themselves. It's also possible that there is sample variation in any bino, even alpha models.

According to rifle Dude on the Optics forum the current Swaro SLC has exactly the same lens coatings as the Swaro SV. As you post there occasionally you may have seen the thread about that. Why would the EL Range be any different?

The Swaro EL Range models are certainly not inexpensive even allowing for the cost of the integrated rangefinder componentry. It stands to reason they would use their best optics albeit, without the flat field feature which realistically probably doesn't help most hunters a great deal and would push the cost of the EL model up to a prohibitive price.

I know you're in love with your 10x42 SV and even more so with your new 10x50 SV, particularly the latter. After all the accolades on the BF about the 10x50 SV I had to go and have a peep at the specialist optical store down the road and yes, very, very nice; I didn't want to put them down. Congrats on owning them.